Area of web rei nforcement per

r<l
inch of spacing ( injirl)
0.020 -
Gil 1211
,
#3 U minimum
0.010
---
-- -
5
T
-- --
Truss Model
AC YAASHTO
10 15 20
Distance from support
centerline (ft )
Fig. 4.49 Comparison of transverse reinforcement for
bridge girder by the space truss model and
the AASHTO specifications
241
242
greatly simplify the computations illustrated which went into great
detail to show all facets of the solution.
Finally, a comparison between the amounts of reinforcement
ind icated by the truss model ,approach and the current AASHTO
Specifications was given for two examples. Both procedures resulted in
approx imately the same amounts of reinforcement. A significant change in
the distribution of the additional longitudinal reinforcement for
combined shear and torsion was indicated. The truss model distribution
seemed far preferable and much more rational. In spite of the generally
equal amounts of longitudinal steel used, the empirical equations for Al
in the current AASHTO requirements are clearly in error because of the
relation with Vu. The present AASHTO requirement results in low amounts
of longitudinal steel in high shear zones. The opposite seems to be the
true requirement. The versatility and rationality of the truss model
approach make this method a preferable one.
C HAP T E R 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary
The principal objective of the investigation reported herein was
to propose and to evaluate a design procedure for shear and torsion in
reinforced and prestressed concret.e beams, with the aim of clarifying
and simplifying current design recommendations and AASHTO requirements
in such areas. The scope was limited to the design of reinforced and
prestressed concrete one-way flexural members subjected to shear and/or
torsion.
A comprehensive review of the current AASHTO and ACI design
procedures for shear and torsion in reinforced and prestressed concrete
beams was reported in Report 248-2. An effort was made to try to
illustrate the factors that previous researchers considered to be of
great influence in the overall behavior of members subjected to shear
and/or tor s ion.
Because of the more abrupt nature of shear and torsion failures,
and the difficulty of formulating reliable mathematical models for the
behavior of beams in shear and torsion, research has usually tended to
concentrate on predicting the collapse load of those members on an
empirical basis.
Unfortunately, from a scientific standpoint an empirical
approach is only correct if the separation and control of the main
243
244
variables in the test program is assured, and if sufficient tests are
conducted to allow a valid statistical treatment of the results. In
testing structural components or entire structures of reinforced or
prestressed concrete these conditions are almost impossible to fullfill
because of the time and financial constraints. Furthermore, diverted by
the large amount of test studies required to substantiate the empirical
approaches, more basic studies of the behavior and modeling of the
overall system carrying shear and torsional forces have been neglected.
In this study, a basic reevaluation of the current procedures
and development of al ternate design procedures is carried out using a
conceptual structual model rather than detailed empirical equations
wherever practical. The structural model used in this evaluation
consists of a space truss with variable angle of inclination of the
diagonal elements. This model was selected as the one which best
represents the behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams
subjected to shear and torsion. This conceptual model was suggested in
the early part of this century by Ritter, generalized by Morsch, and
refined by a number of European engineers in the past 20 years.
Deformation procedures were added by Canadian researchers. Much of the
previous work has been based on highly complex proofs of the application
of plasticity theorems in the fields of shear and torsion. The apparent
complexity of the proofs of the plasticity theorems as applied to shear
and torsion can cause the more design oriented reader to lose sight of
the fact that the authors use these proofs only as a theoret ical basis
for proving the application of a refined truss model. The model has